---
title: Typebot is now Fair Source
description: Typebot is migrating from AGPLv3 to FSL, a new license that gives maximum while ensuring fairness for the project owner.
postedAt: 2024-09-30
author: baptistearno
---

## AGPLv3

Typebot was made open source in 2022. At the time, I decided to release it under the AGPLv3 license, because that is what all the other open source projects I contributed to were using.

AGPLv3 is a strong copyleft license that allows you to use, modify, and distribute the software, but it requires you to share your modifications with the community. This means that if you want to contribute to the project, you need to release your changes under the same license.

On paper, this is perfect to ensure that everyone is contributing back to the open source community.

But it does not stop anyone from:

1. Forking the project
2. Adding a mention of the original project buried in the footer of the landing page
3. Plugging his own payment processor
4. Getting code updates made by the owner without contributing back at all.

While Typebot was in the early stage and was not known, that wasn't really an issue. But as the project grew, I found a lot of people doing this, without even complying with the license terms.

So after sending warnings by email, oftentimes, they comply by providing a mention of the original project, but in tiny muted letters buried in an about page not even linked to the home page. And that is legally accepted with AGPLv3.

## AGPLv3 + commercial license

To avoid that free riding issue, I could have just remove some part of the code from the repository but I really like the idea of having everything source available for complete transparency and simplicity.

So I decided to protect some parts of the codebase with a commercial license:

- The landing page
- The billing system

Basically, this commercial license does not exist but it's a way to legally prevent users from using the landing page and the billing system without even touching the codebase.

This way, if someone wants to commercialize his own version of the project, at least he'd have to create his own landing page and his own billing system.

This works fine, but I started receiving a lot of requests from people who wanted to buy that commercial license and it kind of confused people whether the project was really free. I feel like this dual license is adding confusion in the whole mix.

I also never liked the fact that AGPLv3 license content is barely readable I did not myself read it entirely. Also, for some companies, AGPLv3 is not permissive enough. As a highly viral copyleft license, it exposes users to serious risk of having to divulge their proprietary source code. That is why some organizations restrict the use AGPL softwares.

## Why not a more restrictive licenses?

There are licenses out there like BSL that simply forbids you to commercialize your own version of the project.

Companies who are migrating to these kind of licenses are usually shamed by the open source community as these licenses are not OSI approved licenses, they are not recognized by the OSS community. And you can't say that you are an open source project with that kind of license.

Indeed, one of the major issues with adopting a more restrictive license like this is that if the project owner decides to stop supporting the project, no one will have enough incentive to continue a fork of the project since there won't be a way to make money from the project anymore even though the owner is out of business,

## Enter Fair Source

Fair Source is a new movement that is desined to answer all these issues in the hope of enticing more companies to share access to the code for their core software products while retaining control of their roadmap and business model, without confusing this with Free and Open Source Software.

Fair Source licenses allow companies to share their code while retaining control over its commercial use. This means that while the code is accessible for learning and non-competitive use, it cannot be used to create competing products. This balance encourages transparency and community contributions without jeopardizing the business model.

You can read more about Fair Source [here](https://fair.io/).

Typebot decided to join the Fair Source movement by adopting the Functional Source License (FSL) instead of a hybrid AGPLv3 + commercial license. The license is very easy to understand, you can read it [here](https://github.com/baptisteArno/typebot.io/blob/main/LICENSE).

It allows people to do anything they want with the code as long as they don't compete with the project. And it ensures Typebot can have a great future even in the event of the disappearance of the project owner as after two years it becomes permissive Open Source software under Apache 2.0.

I personnally love using open source software where I have to chance to peek at the code and eventually contribute with bug fixes or improvement. I believe Fair Source could convince more company to be more open and transparent with their code.

Switching to the Functional Source License simplifies Typebot's licensing model, reduces confusion, and aligns with my commitment to transparency and community engagement. I believe this change will foster a more collaborative environment while protecting Typebot's business interests. I invite you to explore Typebot, contribute to its development, and join in this exciting journey.

<Cta highlight="default" />
